Safety and Efficacy of Implant Removal for Patients With Recurrent Back Pain After a Failed Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

The etiology of failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery may include a wide array of conditions. There is a group of patients who have recurrence of back pain despite a solid fusion in the absence of any obvious pain generator. Implant removal in those patients is a controversial optional treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of implant removal and to determine the possible predictors of its efficacy. Twenty-five patients (10 M, 15 F) with an average age of 44 (18 to 74) were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had prior titanium posterior pedicle screw instrumentation and fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders. Twenty patients with increase in pain during palpation of the operative side underwent a preoperative anesthetic injection at the site of their trigger points. Patients' clinical charts, operative notes, and preoperative x-rays were evaluated. Relief of pain was evaluated by the percent Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain change due to implant removal. Functional improvement was rated on a five-point scale. Predictors of pain relief were analyzed by using bivariate analysis. A P value <0.05 was considered significant. Average follow-up period was 20 (12 to 37) months. The median time after the index operation and the recurrence of pain was 13.5 (1 to 119) months. VAS decrease after implant removal was 50% (P<0.001). Functional improvement was reported by 84% of patients. One patient developed a superficial infection managed successfully. Bivariate analysis showed that percent VAS change after injection, months free of pain after the index operation, and provocation of pain by palpation were significant predictors for pain relief (P<0.05). Removal of the implant may be an efficient and safe procedure for carefully selected patients and the most consistent predictor of its efficacy is the percent pain relief after the diagnostic injection of the painful operative side.

[1]  A. Mannion,et al.  Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[2]  R. Zbinden,et al.  Late implant infections caused by Propionibacterium acnes in scoliosis surgery , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[3]  M. Pinto,et al.  Removal of lumbar instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain in the absence of pseudarthrosis , 2003, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[4]  F. Cammisa,et al.  Failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery. , 2003, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[5]  J. Schofferman,et al.  Etiology of long-term failures of lumbar spine surgery. , 2002, Pain medicine.

[6]  C. Court,et al.  Loss of Sagittal Plane Correction After Removal of Spinal Implants , 2000, Spine.

[7]  S. Lai,et al.  Reoperation after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Toward defining late operative site pain of unknown cause. , 2000, Spine.

[8]  R. Deyo,et al.  5‐Year Reoperation Rates After Different Types of Lumbar Spine Surgery , 1998, Spine.

[9]  M. Hume,et al.  Outcome after Wiltse pedicle screw removal. , 1996, Journal of spinal disorders.

[10]  A. Depalma,et al.  The Nature of Pseudoarthrosis , 1992 .

[11]  W. Lauerman,et al.  Management of pseudarthrosis after arthrodesis of the spine for idiopathic scoliosis. , 1991, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  T. J. Flatley,et al.  Closed loop instrumentation of the lumbar spine. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  A. Depalma,et al.  The nature of pseudarthrosis. , 1968, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.